To think that furlough at 80% is FAR too generous.....

[loveyouradvice]

I'm just interested about what others think... I think fine to do this for first three months but really do feel it should be down to 60% or 70% maximum by now....

People on 80% of salary, with no travel or expenses related to working away from home, are really not doing badly .... especially since so much less to spend your money on

It is everyone else I think is having a tough time - whether its kids not getting Free School Meals in holidays, or freelancers or those who've lost their jobs....

I would prefer the "pain" to be shared.... so if on furlough, yes lots of free time and yes, having to tighten your belt a bit....

Would it not be better to pay LESS in furlough - I'm thinking around 65% - and MORE to those who don't qualify but are having a very tough time financially..... ?

I’m
Back at work now after being on furlough since March (so thankful my jobs been saved and I’m back)

But my outgoings went up massively tbh - Husband working at home and me not working - our bills are So high now Compared to when we both went out to work - electricity being used all day, cooking more meals! Any less money then this coming in and we would have been fucked tbh!!

OP you are a twat. I have remained employed luckily but had to take a 20% pay cut for a few months. It was tough. My bills didn’t drop. Would not like to do it for a year and not know if I had a job to go back to.

Too many typos tonight. Ugh!
Furlough simply reinforces the narrative of 'deserving' claimants/poor vs 'undeserving'.

Unfortunately it seems many really do seem to subscribe to that ignorant view. Saying 'just because others struggle, why should I', instead of saying 'why not have no one struggling'. What a shame.

@Chuggington2

No we’re not *@wewereliars* we had nearly 6 months of some variety of a lockdown or another we know the drill ) 6 months is enough data to forecast from, and we we now know which business/sectors have floundered, flourished or carried on as normal and from that we should be able to provide a much more nuanced and targeted approach to the support available. It is just unacceptable for businesses who can operate via home working and who have seen no reduction in revenue to be paying some staff via furlough when some business and individuals who cannot/work or operate are getting nothing.

How do 'we' by which I assume you mean the government know this?

September VAT returns due by this week, possibly?
Companies have until 9 months after the year end (extended to 12 for some) to submit their returns- so it will be October 2021 before we submit a return for this period.

Even within sector it is very variable. What we do is very specialist (hold 3 big public sector contracts and dozens of smaller ones). The sector is open but with restrictions- our work is 75% paused (statutory compliance broadly)

@EL8888 I see you’ve ignored my reply, I guess working in food banks and homeless shelters while furloughed wasn’t productive enough for you.

My DH and I have really struggled with the amount of money my DH gets on furlough we are just about managing to pay our rent and bills some weeks we have to make a choice between putting £5 on the electric or the gas so that we can have heating and cook. This year I’m making edible Christmas presents because we just can’t afford to buy anyone anything. I wish the furlough money was more.

And actually, whilst I want everyone to get enough, if we had to have a straight choice between:

a) Some people get 80% but others (also in need) get nothing

Or

b) Everyone gets 60%

The latter is the more compassionate and better option.

@SheepandCow

Too many typos tonight. Ugh! Furlough simply reinforces the narrative of 'deserving' claimants/poor vs 'undeserving'.

Unfortunately it seems many really do seem to subscribe to that ignorant view. Saying 'just because others struggle, why should I', instead of saying 'why not have no one struggling'. What a shame.

I think the tone was set by OP with her first post.

She conveniently forgot that a lot of the people furloughed are on zero hours contracts,on minimum wage, already relying on benefits to make ends meet.

YABVU. Our living expenses are based on 100% of our wages not 80%. Our bills do not change just because we can’t work. 80% is pittance.

@lyralalala

If furlough is more generous aren’t we looking at larger tax hikes to pay for it?

If even a large chunk of people furloughed were put onto benefits then we'd have to hike benefits to cover mortgages better. We simply can't afford hundreds of thousands of people to default on their mortgage and become homeless.

If it was cheaper just to stick people on benefits then that's what would have happened. The government won't have picked an excessively expensive option if there was a lower cost alternative.

I don’t quite see the logic, if we’re paying people enough to keep their mortgages going at the moment what’s the difference? Mortgage interest is incredibly low at the moment so how many people would that affect? Personally I disagree that we’ve taken the cheapest option, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Investing to maintain a decent life for people isn’t wrong but we can’t prop up incomes to pay for luxuries and we shouldn’t really be propping up businesses that were clearly not financially viable before covid either. A lot isn’t ‘fair’ about this, it isn’t fair that people who can’t be furloughed have to potentially isolate multiple times on ssp or unpaid carers leave either, I imagine that is causing a lot of hardship too.

@RedMarauder

Every single person on furlough is worried they will have a job to go back to and in some cases an industry in which they can work in.

Didn't you hear about the job cuts that are happening today?

^^ This, worth reiterating. For many furlough is welcome but they'd rather be at work at a functioning workplace.

Come March if there isn't a significant improvement in the economic situation some industries/major companies in the UK will have gone.

@TheDoctorDances I sure could do with an extra pair of hands in my year 1 class. Not only am I trying to teach but am expected to clean and serve lunch too. And only 30 mins break a day! 😱

The extension of furlough is great for those who qualified and have some disposable income. As part of the excluded 3 million I can't help but feel a little bitter. I am sure those on the breadline aren't jumping for joy either.

People who need free school meals and freelance probably don't vote Tory so no votes lost...?

Perhaps in this instance @ComeOnBabyHauntMyBubble but unfortunately it's really been the attitude of far too many all along. Ever since furlough was first introduced.

I don't think the JRS was built for 'fairness'. As it's name says, it was to retain jobs. The cost of having 3 million unemployed would be huge (that's the figure estimated if we ended furlough in oct, don't know what it would be if we never had JRS, 9.5mil benefited from it). The total cost of the scheme in July was £30bn, which is pretty cheap compared to bank bailout (£140bn ish?) and brexit cost (£200bn). Economic and social researchers believe the JRS will pay for itself eventually, we won't be 'burdened with this cost for generations'. It would be a complete economic disaster to allow millions to become unemployed. Not only in the direct cost to the taxpayer of increased benefits, but decreased GDP, less spending in the economy, increase in mortgage defaults, probable collapse of housing market.

There's very much the implication that non Covid related job loss or illness is a choice and/or less deserving. These people also have rent or mortgage and bills to pay. They also deserve help.

@Chuggington2. Thank you.

It's terrifying. And I know lots of people are struggling on 80%, but there are also people, like my DH and I , who have gone from 'doing ok/getting by' to zero overnight. And it's now been eight months since our household earned or were given a single penny of income/support/anything. We are still having to find £2k a month in mortgage and council tax alone and that's before gas/water/electricity/petrol/food/DC anything else and when you are earning nothing and eligible for zero, it's quite hard to sleep at night. So 80% of anything sounds like a dream from where I"m standing.

I don't resent anyone getting anything, but there are swathes of people who have fallen through the cracks and it's really hard to not feel bitter.

Talking of costs. It would've been cheaper to have shut the borders with proper quarantine in January or February (except essential travel). Given the travel industry a financial support package. Instead of the billions spent on furlough (including the fraud cases), EOTHO, and the failed test, track, and trace system.

Failing to contain was - is - a false economy.

I don’t quite see the logic, if we’re paying people enough to keep their mortgages going at the moment what’s the difference? Mortgage interest is incredibly low at the moment so how many people would that affect? Personally I disagree that we’ve taken the cheapest option, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Investing to maintain a decent life for people isn’t wrong but we can’t prop up incomes to pay for luxuries and we shouldn’t really be propping up businesses that were clearly not financially viable before covid either. A lot isn’t ‘fair’ about this, it isn’t fair that people who can’t be furloughed have to potentially isolate multiple times on ssp or unpaid carers leave either, I imagine that is causing a lot of hardship too.

The difference is people on benefits don't get their mortgages paid. They can claim limited interest help (there's a value cap too - I think 200/250k) after 39 weeks on benefits. We'd see vast increased in people defaulting and having their homes repossesed. That would impact on banks, house prices and on councils, who'd have to try and house the increased number of homeless people.

More people would be plunged into serious debt, which would make the benefits trap much harder to get out of and would therefore cost more longer term.

That's without even the logistics of trying to process even more claims. The system is struggling to cope as it is.

A vast majority of people on furloughed are on relatively low wages so you want them to survive on 65 per cent of what is possibly a really low income?
In the mean time we are already facing mass unemployment how do we come back from that?

I was furloughed in my previous job for five months, made redundant then managed to get a new job. Only minimum wage, but I could just about manage. I’m now furloughed on that! I only spend £10/wk on travel so can’t say that’s saving me much! I just wish they’d do a proper lockdown that might have some effect, rather than this half hearted effort with half the country exempt, that will only mean it’s going to drag on and on.

I presume the OP isn’t suffering financially during these weird times!

@Pixxie7

A vast majority of people on furloughed are on relatively low wages so you want them to survive on 65 per cent of what is possibly a really low income? In the mean time we are already facing mass unemployment how do we come back from that?

You think it's ok that others (many also previously on low incomes) have to try (and often fail) and survive on almost nothing?

Better everyone gets enough. But if you had to choose, would you select certain people only to get help whilst others get nothing, or choose for everyone to get something but slightly less? If you had to choose?

@TheDoctorDances

Have you tried being on minimum wage, trying to cover your bills and paying full child support after an 80% pay cut?

You’re clearly speaking from a place of enough privilege to pay all your bills, heat the house and put food on the table. That’s more than a lot of people in this country right now.

nothing more to say

@Chuggington2
Companies aren't using furlough to build up savings! Furlough is being used to pay employees wages. Ive no doubt that there is some fraud but overall its feeding working people and their families.